How on earth can one live in 2025 and think "analytic philosophy is correct"? Can those with a degree in analytic philosophy give an answer to that?
What is the alternative?
>>24720213You move on. Analytic philosophy is a sophisticated version of an internet argument
>>24720044I mean, it is correct isn’t it? The whole point of analytical philosophy is to figure out how to say nothing that isn’t impeccably and inarguably correct. And unintentionally it demonstrates how worthless a project that is.
>>24720044“Analytic philosophy” is just a way of grouping a trend of academic philosophical writings. Within this grouping there are hundreds of contrary positions argued for by different writers. How would they all be true or false?
>>24720044I take russel or witgenstein over focault or hegel
>>24720362Tpbp. It's actually kind of funny how a movement focused on being as correct as possible has still fallen into the endless linguistic autism that has plagued post-structuralism, albeit without the emphasis on genealogy.
>>24720213
>>24720044It's funny how every time one of these threads pops up it's revealed OP doesn't even know what "analytic philosophy" is.
I've noticed tiktok debaters really like analytical philosophy
>>24720044Esoteric analytic philosophy is the way forward. You have to read between the lines to get the much deeper sub-surface insights seeping through from the analytic tradition's collective unconscious intellect..
>>24721632lmfao
>>24720044Analytic philosophy, at least the modern version, comes across as insufferably close minded and autistic.
>>24721632lol imagine if there was like some thread running all along the way from German idealism to analytic philosophy
>>24721632Bertie's lookin' a bit like Willy Wonka in that photo.
>>24721632Did you enjoy Wittgenstein fucking your bottom Bertie?
>>24721674There is. It's neo-Kantianism.
>>24720213Queer-coded Afro-sociology
>>24720044"Analytic Philosophy" is a field and not a system of beliefs you moron. It can't be right or wrong
>>24722022Then this must be used as the means to reconcile the schools
>>24720365>>24722048When I say "analytic philosophy," it generally refers to the philosophy practiced by people like these:Anscombe, J. L. Austin, A. J. Ayer, Stanley Cavell, Patricia Churchland, David Chalmers, Roderick Chisholm, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, Michael Dummett, Ronald Dworkin, Jerry Fodor, G. E. Moore, Nelson Goodman, Paul Grice, Peter Hacker, R. M. Hare, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, John McDowell, Colin McGinn, Marvin Minsky, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, Martha Nussbaum, Derek Parfit, Alvin Plantinga, Hilary Putnam, Quine, John Rawls, Gilbert Ryle, T. M. Scanlon, John Searle, Wilfrid Sellars, Peter Singer, Ernest Sosa, Robert Stalnaker, P. F. Strawson, Bas van Fraassen, Bernard Williams, Timothy Williamson.People from the same era as Carnap or Frege are excluded. This is because "analytic philosophy" no longer studies them, but also because at that time, they were frequently associated with other philosophers like Husserl or Freud. And this includes Wittgenstein.The situation may be slightly different for those who added other elements to analytic philosophy, such as Stanley Cavell or Gilbert Ryle, or for Wilfrid Sellars and John McDowell. But even their work seems inadequate in the face of the political turmoil and technological disruption of the 2020s.
>>24722175This makes no sense. All of the people listed are incredibly different. For pretty much any question, you'd get wildly different and contradictory answers from most of them. Maybe you mean that their methodology is misguided, but analytic philosophers constantly argue about methodology and metaphilosophy so I don't know where you're coming from. >But even their work seems inadequate in the face of the political turmoil and technological disruption of the 2020'sRelevance is not the measure of proper philosophy.
>>24720044>analytic philosophy is correctNo one has been thinking this anymore for about 15/20 years, if you have old fashioned professors and autistic classmates it's not your fault. The vast majority of young scholars and PhDs I've met were working with both analytic and continental philosophy.
>>24722175Im ignoring the guy who replied to this because he couldnt even properly engage with any of this, and unironically thinks that because there are things within a category that could be different or "contradictory" that it cant still be under the same category. Just juvenile contention really.But the most important part is this:>But even their work seems inadequate in the face of the political turmoil and technological disruption of the 2020s.How did he just dodge Analytic Philosophy's head in the clouds narrow "philosophy" that fundamentally lacks the capacity to engage in political and sociological thought beyond surface level affirmations of liberalism and the system they already exists in that underpins their entire ACADEMIC glorification.
>>24720357You're delusional. I have never witnessed someone on the internet analyzing his or the opponent's argument ny the means predicate logic. In this regard, the approach of Analytical Philosophy is arguably more honest.>>24720657Initially, the founder of the movement believed they found a way to get rid off all metaphysics. Their weapon were a analysis of language, formal logic and something they called "Sinnkriterium". In short, the hypothesis that a sentence can only be meaningful if and only if you can provide a hypothetical scenario in which the sentence is true of false.They falied.Today, metaphysics is back and with power and the philosophers debate their question again.>>24721672>Analytic philosophy, at least the modern version, comes across as insufferably close minded and autistic.How so?
>>24722190>>24722278>>24722296I hate this view that philosophy is just a place for people to discuss politics. No, politics are not that important.Not everything is political and questions like "how get we get knowledge" etc. are worth asking, even withiun a political aim in mind.
>>24722425By way of objection, I don't see how philosophy can or ought to neglect politics. Philosophizing, as a human activity, must always therefore take place in a human context, i.e., a political context, no? And in order to even get started, philosophy has to contest opinions that are the recieved opinions of a community, e.g., about what's real and what isn't, what x really is vs. how it appears in opinions, etc. And if philosophy has any aims attached to its activity, it can't be satisfied with knowledge that's narrow and/or disparate, but knowledge to the utmost or of the Whole to the extent that's possible, and a rejection of politics as a valid object of knowledge is tantamount to saying that philosophy has no aim to grasp the Whole. To use your example of asking what knowledge is, can any satisfactory discovery be made about knowledge by abstracting away from the relation of knowledge to practice or production, and, insofar as knowledge is sometimes coextensive with practice and production, a political context? Not to mention that asking about knowledge is really asking about human knowledge, and so has to take account of the human being, which is a political creature.
>>24720044analytic philosophy isn't a position so it cant be correct or not correct. there are many analytic philosophers who disagree with each other and many analytic philosophers who believe in shit you would associate with continental philosophy. analytic philosophy is literally just a tradition of standards for academic writing.
>>24722296Maybe if you read more analytic philosophy and studied logic more, you'd understand that I wasn't saying that contradiction within a category nullifies the category. I was disagreeing with you ascribing a truth value to the entire category. Again, the only way to do that in this context is to argue that the common methodology is incorrect.
>>24720044>analytic vs continentalThe philosophical equivalent of red team vs blue team.
>>24722175I like most of these philosophers (not so much Dennett and the Churchlands, and my patience for some OLP people wears thin sometimes, but I like everyone else in some respect or another). I also like historical philosophy pre-divide, and continental philosophy. I feel people should just do what I do, you get more out of it.
>>24720044American Pragmatism miscarried after Pierce, which aborted timely reconciliation with Continental thought. And the outcome of the world wars elevating the French without counterbalance.
>>24720044Analytic "philosophy" is a philosophical cope for STEMtards who couldn't get into post-kantian philosophy. Not real philosophy.
>>24723590Pragmatism and Bergsonian continental philosophy (Deleuze, Merleau-Ponty, arguably Heidegger) already draw pretty close, with Whitehead acting as a sort of bridge.
>>24724365>and BergsonianInteresting, I was recommended Bergson by one anon after having doubts in Schopenhaeuer. And Pierce, James, and Whitehead by a different anon to address the type of criticism of Kant that Schop and other post kantians dipped into
>>24720044It’s beyond question that the world is messy — right down to quantum physics — and philosophy should reflect that. As always, Heraclitus was right
lotta controonental itt
total controonental death
>>24724510This is what analytics does to a nigga. Sad!
>>24724512Shut up troon
what the hell is going on in this thread...i wouldnt expect this from an analytic nigga, they tend to be mega liberal retards
>>24724516Ok schizo
>>24720044There are pretty much only two categories of people who seethe about analytic philosophy:1) those who agree with it in spirit but who don't like being represented by a bunch of midwits like Russell and his ilk2) those who want to be able to continue writing word salad to baffle people with obscurantist bullshit, knowing that precise language would reveal how utterly unremarkable they are (pro tip: look at any butthurt replies I receive to see this category)
>>24724526Yeah, I don't know what's going on with the anahilter poster. I think he is just severely mentally ill
>>24724526Because you're a controonental subhuman who has never read a word of analytic philosophy >>24724528Seethe harder troon
>>24724534Later Wittgenstein isnt even necessarily Analytic, arguably anti Analytic. Although they stole his language is just conventional use shit to dismiss and dispel continental philosophers I guess, even though he was also arguing against them, and the fundamental idea that language could even capture truth truly.
>>24724533>>24724538Kneel you fucking troons
Even before analytic philosophy, it was a common observation that British writers like Locke, Hume, and Berkeley stated their ideas plainly (a tradition carried on with the American pragmatists and whatnot), whereas Continental writers adopted a deliberately opaque style out of intellectual cowardice. Buckbroken Continentals will never forgive the bong or burger for showing what a sham Continental philosophy is.
>>24724553>British writers like Locke, Hume, and Berkeley stated their ideas plainlySchopenhauer took this from these philosophers and wrote clearly with a great style. This is why he is more widely read than any other controonental philosopher
>>24724563>This is why he is more widely read than any other controonental philosopherUh so is Nietzsche, that reasoning doesnt really make sense
>>24724566Schizos are known for cognitive incoherence
>>24724566>>24724571>NigschePlease refer to this graph >>24724516
>>24724575https://youtu.be/p504_aZZWVY?si=e_QbycjVU4a67GTG
What would Tractatus-era Wittgenstein think of the proliferation of Large Language Models as an attempted critical thinking tool?His late marginalia is bizarre and rather genreless ... it's rich and far from the failed project of analytics
>>24724538nice take, proper recalibration to Wittgenstein's fairly punk intentions
>>24724538>§284. Look at a stone and imagine it having sensations. One says to oneself: How could one so much as get the idea of ascribing a sensation to a thing? One might as well ascribe it to a number! And now look at a wriggling fly, and at once these difficulties vanish, and pain seems able to get a foothold here, where before everything was, so to speak, too smooth for it.>And so, too, a corpse seems to us quite inaccessible to pain. Our attitude to what is alive and to what is dead is not the same. All our reactions are different. If someone says, “That cannot simply come from the fact that living beings move in such-and-such ways and dead ones don’t”, then I want to suggest to him that this is a case of the transition ‘from quantity to quality’.I'm just going to ignore the misery that is occurring in this thread
>>24724649Man, crazy how I read the book earlier this year and I still remember this quote:>then I want to suggest to him that this is a case of the transition ‘from quantity to quality’.He has so many good little quotes and random analogies in that book despite how much of a disparate mess it is, and how much he seemingly ends certain train of thoughts far too early, just to start up a completely new one, and then end up returning to a certain thought like a chapter later.One analogy that sticks in my mind is the Kettle one, only because I remember it as profoundly making a point, but at the same time I can never recall the specific, and I hate reconsuming a piece of art or media, makes it feel like work, so I prefer to recall things through conversation of other people who have read or experienced the same thing.
>>24724473
>>24724658thanks for actually giving me some direction, will read asap
>>24724487the type of nigga to fail calculus 1>>24720044later wittgenstein is still the most relevant philosopher of the 21st century. he is the ibn taymiyya of western philosophy
>>24724658>Cant find an audiobookfuck am im going to have to actually by the book...
>>24724664they're a nice publisher ...picrel is a maddening book ... any Paul North fans?
>>24724669same translation
>>24724676sorry meant to add pdf w last msghttps://www.reasoned.org/dir/lit/matter_and_memory.pdf
>>24724678thanks, appreciate it, lets see if I can find an audiobook version too...
>Continental versus analyticThey're both fundamentally flawed. You need to go further back. Univocity and nominalism are a mistake.
>>24724747True, but you too need to go further back to Plato and Plotinus.
>>24724747Wrong. We need to go further FORWARD. Take the ancient stuff, the medieval, the early modern, the analytic, the continental, the eastern, the native, the amateur, mix these sources with original creativity, and create non-provincial philosophies of the future. No more being stuck in the past and present. Become the vanguard of the future.
>>24724487It's amazing how one meme triggered all the following seethe>>24724497>>24724504>>24724510>>24724516>>24724518>>24724522>>24724534>>24724541
>>24724840Origen was actually an older contemporary of Plotinus in Alexandria. There are some interesting possible links there. Obviously, despite writing a polemic against the Gnostics, it's easy to see that Plotinus seems to have taken much from them or some common source; same with the late "middle Platonism" of orthodox Christians like Clement and Origen or Jews like Philo and the Essenes.
>>24720044Wdym "correct?" It tackles completely different problems
